4.4 Article

Endogenous multifractal brain dynamics are modulated by age, cholinergic blockade and cognitive performance

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE METHODS
卷 174, 期 2, 页码 292-300

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2008.06.037

关键词

Fractal; Multifractal; Ageing; Scopolamine; Recognition; Self-organised; Critical phase

资金

  1. National Institute of Mental Health
  2. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
  3. GlaxoSmithKline
  4. University of Cambridge
  5. Medical Research Council [G0001354, G0001354B] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The intuitive notion that a healthy organism is characterised by regular, homeostatic function has been challenged by observations that a loss of complexity is, in fact, indicative of ill-health. Monofractals succinctly describe complex processes and are controlled by a single time-invariant scaling exponent, H, simply related to the fractal dimension. Previous analyses of resting fMRI time-series demonstrated that ageing and scopolamine administration were both associated with increases in H and that faster response in a prior encoding task was also associated with increased H. We revisit this experiment with a novel, multifractal approach in which fractal dynamics are assumed to be non-stationary and defined by a spectrum of local singularity exponents. Parameterisation of this spectrum was capable of refracting the effects of age, scopolamine and task performance as well as a refining a description of the associated signal changes. Using the same imaging data, we also explored turbulence as a possible mechanism underlying multifractal dynamics. Evidence is provided that Carstaing's model of turbulent information flow from high to low scales has only limited validity, and that scale invariance of energy dissipation is better explained by critical-phase phenomena, supporting the proposition that the brain maintains a state of self-organised criticality. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据